Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Objects To DOT Ruling  
User currently offlineCO767FA From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 532 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6775 times:

It appears CO isn't going to let the China route slip into UA's hands easily:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/443866.pdf

58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

It makes sense. UA already has PVG service ex ORD and SFO!!!! Give it to CO!!!!

User currently offlinePdxcof9 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6570 times:

Yeah give it to a different airline. United already serves Shanghai!!!  biting   frown   hissyfit   irked   mad   yell 

Sorry got overexcited with the smilies.



Flown:733,4,7,8,752,763,TU3,CRJ,7,EM2,ER3,4,318,19,346,M80,90 Worked:CRJ,7,9,EM2,ER4,733,5,7,8,9,752,3,318,9
User currently offlineHugo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6494 times:

Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

User currently offlineORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6476 times:

Quoting Hugo (Reply 3):
Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

Poor service standards? I like Continental, but give me United's Economy Plus any day of the week. The extra legroom makes a huge difference.


User currently offlineCOEI2007 From Vanuatu, joined Jan 2007, 1912 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6429 times:

Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4051 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6402 times:

Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger idea 


DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6392 times:

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 5):
Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is hilarious. You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it. The DC area currently has no service to China at all.

IAD-PEK made the most sense based on the DOT's criteria, and the DOT won't change its ruling. These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7583 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

I highly doubt that the DOT will reverse its decision. If for no other reason than to save face. I thought CO would have recieved the service, but they just have to hope for next year.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinePdxcof9 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6356 times:

who serves shanghai from nyc?


Flown:733,4,7,8,752,763,TU3,CRJ,7,EM2,ER3,4,318,19,346,M80,90 Worked:CRJ,7,9,EM2,ER4,733,5,7,8,9,752,3,318,9
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7583 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Quoting Pdxcof9 (Reply 9):
who serves shanghai from nyc?

MU (China Eastern) serves them 2x weekly.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineGhostRider From Pakistan, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6297 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it. The DC area currently has no service to China at all.

IAD-PEK made the most sense based on the DOT's criteria, and the DOT won't change its ruling. These sorts of appeals occur regularly, and they're almost never reversed.

 checkmark 
Exactly!


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6225 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 7):
You guys are whining that UA already has service to Shanghai, but if you reverse the situation, NYC already does too. So if you pick CO or UA you're still giving Shanghai to someone/something that already has it.

China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.


User currently offlineDelta787 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6157 times:

I feel the chances of the DOT reversing its decsision is pretty slim.


Fly Delta!
User currently offlineIloveboeing From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 796 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6134 times:

Quoting COEI2007 (Reply 5):
Well, UA has PVG service already. It was always between CO and UA, and CO only has 1 daily flight to China as it is, so they should get it in the interest of competition etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, CO has a second daily flight to China, to HKG. You can't forget HKG.


User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3094 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6094 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.

Doesn't matter. We're talking about a service gap and increasing access of US citizens to China. Adding another carrier on a route that is already flown does not increase access to China for US citizens in the same way as opening an entirely new market to China.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5249 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6056 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 15):
Doesn't matter. We're talking about a service gap and increasing access of US citizens to China. Adding another carrier on a route that is already flown does not increase access to China for US citizens in the same way as opening an entirely new market to China.

But, you can hardly argue that the existing service is all that good for US citizens. The route is flown 4 x weekly and is currently down to 2 x weekly through March. That is hardly enough for a market the size of NYC-PVG. The award should have gone to CO hands down. As they say in their objection, UA could have implemented IAD-PEK if they truly wanted to with their existing US-China frequencies. This award has only succeeded in making an already dominant carrier even more so in a very important, yet highly restricted market. Hardly a "win" for us consumers. I'm with Falcon here, this decision stinks of political considerations.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineUA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6033 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 16):
But, you can hardly argue that the existing service is all that good for US citizens. The route is flown 4 x weekly and is currently down to 2 x weekly through March. That is hardly enough for a market the size of NYC-PVG.

Clearly it is if MU is only operating the flight 2x a week. Big populations have very little to do with how sucessful the route will be.


User currently offlineHiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2172 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

Lot of CO boosters in here...there is always a period after an award for comments and I cannot recall any instance of a reward being reversed as a result. The fact that the current NYC frequency has dropped to 2x weekly only enforces the fact that there is not that big of a local market..not that it needs even more service.

Yes...UA is a large player in China...yes CO and AA lined up a few years ago and aggressively lobbied the same federal agency against UAL getting a loan which might have kept UA out of Chapt 11 (or maybe not) ....with the anticipated hope UA would shut down and CO would score the LHR routes and AA the Pacific on the shutdown......being the great Texas carriers they were and the current administration. So UAL then hired Texas Oil Man Tilton and has not looked back.

geee....

What goes around just went around.


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 17):
Clearly it is if MU is only operating the flight 2x a week. Big populations have very little to do with how sucessful the route will be.

This has more to do with MU's inability to attract high fare business passengers who cover most of the costs on flights to/from China not with the actual demand between these 2 markets.

I think that they make a very convincing argument. How can the DOT justify 2 daily non-stop flights between PVG-ORD and not even one US Flag flight between NYC-PVG. It just doesn't add up. I think CO needs to get themselves a little "POLITIC", clearly their agressive nature isn't helping their position in DC.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7583 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5896 times:

Quoting PVG" class=quote target=_blank>PVG (Reply 19):
I think that they make a very convincing argument. How can the DOT justify 2 daily non-stop flights between PVG-ORD and not even one US Flag flight between NYC-PVG. It just doesn't add up. I think CO needs to get themselves a little "POLITIC", clearly their agressive nature isn't helping their position in DC.

I definately had my money of CO. I do agree to a point with you on the ORD issue. Last I checked NYC was the 2nd largest market to China (behind LAX) and ORD lagged far behind. However ORD has more service to China. ORD does have better connections and a better geographic location. One thing I hate is despite the fact that LAX (by far) has the largest O&D market to China, no US carrier will take and interest in it (not even to HKG).



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineGhostRider From Pakistan, joined May 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5882 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 12):
China Eastern is not a US Carrier, so that's irrelevant. CO did have the strongest case, connecting the two dominant financial markets of both nations, and the notion that the DOT was playing politics with this one will not soon go away.

The fact is that NYC already has service to Shanghai, regardless if it's on a US carrier....


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5797 times:

How many topics have there been about CO's attacks on the DOT for some of its decisions? Perhaps some of that venom was a part of the decision making process.

We'll never know.


User currently offlinePVG From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2004, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5714 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 20):
One thing I hate is despite the fact that LAX (by far) has the largest O&D market to China, no US carrier will take and interest in it (not even to HKG).

Agree, how can CX fill 3 flights a day, and yet, no US carrier takes a shot at competing with them. I think that it just shows how inferior the US carriers are service-wise and the poor perception of the US carriers in Asia that they don't even want to think about going against CX. The other thing that's odd about LAX is that despite the huge population in the surrounding areas, no one really calls it a hub? Every airline seems to serve the airport, but no-one calls it a hub/base? Why is that? That market would seem to beg for a home-town carrier. Maybe it has to do with the fact that there are so many smaller airports near-by that serve the market directly that it doesn't work economically.


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5706 times:

Quoting Hugo (Reply 3):
Continental deserves the opportunity. United does not. The public deserves a choice- an alternative to United's poor service standards.

I agree. UA already has a strong asian network, and CO has proven itself very well on its EWR-PEK and EWR-HKG flights. I feel this should have gone to either CO or NW (who had already proven their route pre 9/11) UA already has two north american cities to shanghai.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 6):
Both CO and UA could settle this thing with a merger idea

I don't think CO is looking for a merger... their business seems to be working pretty well.

Quoting Pdxcof9 (Reply 9):
who serves shanghai from nyc?

MU - China Eastern - 2x week with an A346... i think it used to be 4 or 5 times a week, but they recent cut it - right after the DOT announcement i believe.

Quoting Delta787 (Reply 13):
I feel the chances of the DOT reversing its decsision is pretty slim.

I'll agree, but if anyone can strong arm the bureaucracy.... it would be CO.

Quoting GhostRider (Reply 21):
The fact is that NYC already has service to Shanghai, regardless if it's on a US carrier....

2x week to new york really isn't much. Also, there is no north america-shanghai service on a skyteam airline, while one world has AA's service from ORD and star already has UA's service from ORD and SFO.

And NY is a larger market than DC.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
25 GhostRider : What about AS, UA, and AA? AA is debateable, but AS and UA definitely call LAX a hub
26 LAXdude1023 : I agree. I can kind of understand why they wont try to serve mainland China from LAX simply because its already served (although there is plenty of r
27 SLCUT2777 : Aside from LAX and SFO, another west coast market that is overlooked by CZ, MU & CA as well as the U.S. flag carriers is SEA. With YVR just up the ro
28 Post contains images C680 : CO has filed their objection to better position themselves in the next round.
29 Post contains images ThePalauan : I wonder what called for the DOT not to award a backup carrier the China authority. Another thing that strikes me is the 9th footnote about how simila
30 LAXdude1023 : I agree. ATL's market to China is practically nil, but the "Worlds largest hub" bit coupled with the fact that DL has no service to China could very
31 Post contains images WesternA318 : Amen to that... So let's get CO to restart their spurned IAD hub.... back in the 50's-70's, the CAB overturned the Pacific Route Award several times
32 RwSEA : New York has multiple daily flights to China between PEK, HKG, and PVG. The Washington area has zero. I would consider a limited weekly frequency to
33 Coewraatysaz : CO's aircraft have almost the exact amount of legroom. Mentioning amenities, though, try going on UA's 747s that have NO PTVs, compared to CO's 777s.
34 MasseyBrown : CO isn't the only airline to object; NW has also. Meanwhile the DOT has rejected UA's request for pendente lite authority, i.e. the right to commence
35 Post contains images Cba : Sad, but true. So much for competition. And Continental is able to do both from EWR. They've got the massive O&D feed from the NYC market, as well as
36 LAXdude1023 : Indeed. This is why I felt sure they would get the route. I would have put money on it. I love UA, but I dont think giving them the route was the rig
37 STT757 :
38 United777ORD : Wipe your tears Continental. It serves you right when you were one of the airlines against UAL when they were trying to get a govt. loan. The people a
39 Post contains images Kiwiandrew : and yet inexplicably they were awarded IAD-BJS instead
40 WestWing : In related news, UA had requested permission to begin marketing/sale of tickets on the IAD-PEK route. In making their request UA had clearly indicated
41 Jimyvr : UA can argue that China Eastern now flies New York-Shanghai so Continental doesn't need to fly this route
42 Post contains links LAXdude1023 : As long as your holding a grudge, dont forget what UA did to CO at DEN with TORQUE. It was one of the most shady marketing tactics in Airline history
43 AC787 : NW flights to china and united's flights are completley different, I don't understand the comparision. United flies direct from the US and simply add
44 BN727 : Funny how CO didn't seem to want it until UA did.......Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
45 COewrAAtysAZ : It makes perfect sense if you look past whether the stopover city is international or domestic. The flight still stops somewhere else. UA has the opt
46 CO767FA : Your post typifies the arrogance that is often associated with UA (luckily it doesn't represent everyone at UA). I'm amazed at how you try to nullify
47 Post contains images CO767FA : Statements like this are an example of posts that make us go........hmmmm Are you stating that CO didn't want the China route until UA did? CO had be
48 SeeTheWorld : It is not irrelevant. It is less relevant, but not irrelevant. Connecting the two largest financial capitals is not the one-and-only criteria for the
49 LAXdude1023 : I agree whole-heartedly. My personal opinion was that CO should have gotten it, but Im not the DOT. They both had strong cases. Even though I thought
50 SeeTheWorld : It was a huge win for Washington consumers who have no nonstop access to China versus NY consumers who have three airline choices to two Chinese citi
51 CO767FA : ROFLOL....this is such an amateur comment. There is no basis of fact for this decision; at least not when applying your statement. Really, what is th
52 SeeTheWorld : Dude, it was curious, but it's the only logical reason. And, let's face it, there is no way anyone who was awarded this route would not operate it. A
53 Tommy767 : The DOT has their reasons, and lets not forget, we're all a bunch of aviation snobs here. Most people in Y will notice little difference between CO a
54 SeeTheWorld : Well, it is going to be a UA744, which doesn't have the PTVs, which does suck. However, Economy+ is also a benefit that the other carriers do not hav
55 NW748i : Methinks you're right because people here in DC (congressmen included) are quite happy over this increased connectiveity in an area that is growing i
56 Daron4000 : ORD actually does have a market for China, otherwise AA wouldn't have recently made ORD its Asian gateway. That being said, I don't feel AA deserved
57 Post contains images AC787 : Do you even know what your arguing about anymore?
58 CO767FA : I do...do you (and if you do, what's your point)?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
DL/CO/NW To Implement Agreement Despite DOT posted Tue Jan 21 2003 19:58:06 by TWFirst
If CO Had To Choose IAH Or EWR posted Fri Jan 19 2007 02:42:24 by Aileron11
CO IAH To HNL Mexico Fly Over Question posted Thu Jan 18 2007 21:31:51 by EmSeeEye
Why No Mainline CO Service To BNA? posted Sun Nov 26 2006 17:13:49 by Lexy
RDU Supports Virgin America With Letter To DOT posted Wed Oct 18 2006 08:16:19 by Aamr
CO Looking To Fly Turbo Props Out Of EWR posted Wed Oct 11 2006 22:57:56 by Nycfuturepilot
CO 9 Diverted To Nagoya posted Fri Oct 6 2006 12:51:44 by David
RUMOR: CO Express To Term A At EWR posted Sat Sep 16 2006 04:54:41 by JerseyGuy
CO Switching To 772ER On IAH-EZE? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 18:18:58 by CODCAIAH
CO Charges To Deliver Lost Luggage? posted Fri Jul 28 2006 14:44:51 by Petmbro